DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "1" and "1’" have both been used to designate a toilet, reference characters “11” and “11’” have both been used to designate the small mounting hole, reference characters “3” and “3’” have both been used to designate a gasket, and reference characters “4” and “4’” have both been used to designate a nut. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 5 and the wrench being made of plastics as set forth in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No drawing is permitted to show alternative configurations, and the wrench depicted is of a single unitary construction made of a single material which is metal (cross-section of Figure 7). See 37CFR1.84(h)(5) and 608.02IX. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because for discussing the purported merits, “suitable for…”, “conveniently and quickly”, etc. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The brief description of drawings should not include a list of the reference numerals in the drawings, this should be reserved for the detailed description. See the first paragraph of 608.01(f). Applicant should also note that the list at issue fails to include all reference characters as none of the reference characters from Figures 1 or 2 are found in the list.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “clamping part for…” in claim 1. The specification clearly describes the clamping part. Claim 2, and its dependents, recite sufficient structure to no longer invoke 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the gasket is not part of the invention. Further, the specification did not make clear the specific type of gasket to be clamped, nor that gasket’s dimensions. Therefore, the scope of the claim and the dimensions intended are indeterminate. Examiner will treat anything having the structure required of claim 2 to meet size limitations of claims 4 and 5. See MPEP 3283.05(b) II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson (U.S Patent No. 1,413,243).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson teaches (Figures 1, 2, and 5) a wrench having a handle (10) and a socket wrench head (12). The socket wrench head (12) is arranged at one end of the handle and includes inside of it an inner cavity (12f) for mounting a nut and a bolt reservation hole (12e) in communication with the inner cavity. A clamping part (14) is arranged at the second end of the handle (10). The clamping part is capable of clamping a gasket because it meets the structural requirements of the 112(f), opposing sidewalls, and because being able to clamp a gasket is dependent on the thickness of the gasket itself, which has not been claimed.
Regarding claim 2, the clamping part (14; Figure 1) has a strip-shaped clamp gap formed by left and right and clamping arms on opposing sides of the gap.
Regarding claim 4, because the clamping part (14) meets the structural requirements of claim 2 it is considered to meet the requirement to be capable of clamping the gasket of claim 4. See 112(b) discussion above.
Regarding claim 7, the handle and the socket wrench are perpendicular to each other (Figure 2) in a corner shape.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Hsieh (U.S Publication 20020178873).
Thompson teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except a convex bulge being located on a clamping surface of one of the left and right arms.
Hsieh teaches (Figure 3) it is known to provide convex bulges on the clamping surfaces of the left and right arms (generally 24). Hsieh also teaches it is known to not have these bulges present (Figures 1 and 2).
Based on the teachings of Hsieh it would have been obvious to try adding convex bulges to the clamping surfaces of the left and right clamping arms of Thompson in an attempt to create better contact between the arms and anything being actuated by the arms.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Rothe (U.S Patent No. 2,594,684).
Regarding claim 5, Thompson teaches the size requirement of the clamp gap being smaller than the gasket because Thompson teaches the required structure of claim 2 (see 112(b) discussion above). Thompson therefore teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except the left and right clamping arms being made of an elastic material.
Rothe teaches (Figures 1-3) it is known in the art to manufacture left and right clamping arms (32, 38, and 44) out of an elastic material (rubber; col. 2, lines 20). Rother teaches making the arms elastic for the purpose of preventing damage to the surface of the item being articulated with the arms (Col. 1, lines 20-22; Col. 2, lines 29-33).
Based on the teachings of Rothe it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the clamping arms of Thompson to construct them of elastic material for the purpose of allowing the arms to engage work surfaces effectively while reducing the chance of damaging the work surfaces.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Hillinger (U.S Patent No. 5,595,095).
Regarding claim 6, Thompson teaches the inner cavity (12f) has 6 sides. Therefore Thompson teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except the inner cavity having 12 sides.
Hillinger teaches (Figures 1-3; Col. 8, lines 6-9) it is common for an inner cavity (36) of a ratchet head to be composed of 12 sides.
Because Thompson and Hillinger teach known equivalent structures when it comes to inner cavities of ratchet it heads it would have been obvious to substitute a 12 sided inner surface for the 6 sided inner surface to achieve the predictable result of being able to engage a bolt.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Gummow (U.S Publication No. 20140260819).
Thompson teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above, including that the wrench is manufactured of metal (see cross-section of Figure 5), but fails to teach the wrench being made specifically of stainless steel or plastic.
Gummow teaches (paragraph 22) that a known, suitable, type of material to manufacture a wrench is stainless steel.
It would have been obvious to have modified Thompson to incorporate the teachings of Gummow to make the wrench of stainless steel because Gummow has indicated this is a known and suitable material which would ensure the device functioned properly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Micklich (US Publication No. 20040139827), Steele (U.S Patent No. 6,637,299), Ragner (U.S Patent No. 9,770,820), Adamo (U.S Patent No. 8,491,655), Lin (U.S Publication No. 20090282953), Hawkins (U.S Publication No. 20020194679), Oakey (U.S Patent No. 518,328), Kleffman (U.S Patent No. 930,973), Lantt (U.S Patent No. 361,704), Miller (U.S Patent No. 485,290), Tuttle (U.S Patent No. 1,567,877), Vannote (U.S Patent No. 642,391), and Gray (U.S Patent No. 184,775) teach elements of the current invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD F LANDRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-5567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761